If you really want to be faithful to the Fluff; A would-be Commissar would start play as a Stormtrooper. Then, after 2500xp said candidate, if he/she had exhibited the appropriate leadership and devotion to the cause, would be able to change archtype to Commissar using the rules in HotE. One could also treat Sergeants the same way by having them start out as one of the other "Standard" guard types, (Weapon spec, Hvy Gunner, Medic or Operator). Otherwise, I don't really see the issue either. Different styles of game will naturally necessitate different approaches. If you as the GM don't want your players to play specialists; Don't allow them! If you do; Then have at! At higher levels, One could even create a Colonel Commissar Gaunt using the same methodology...Stormtrooper, then Commisar and finally Commander archtype much later The rules are intentionally meant to emphasize flexibility because the IG takes a ridiculously huge variation between various regiments. The individual guardsman's life being about the most consistent thing in any of them!

Again, the one consistency between his viewpoints is the minimization of player/character choice. It would make sense that Robomummy would dislike the option for something different, even if any particular group can ignore it.

Again you seem to miss the point, it's not that I'm against choice, it is that I am against some of the choices they put in. I don't believe there is any reason in Only War that a PC should be playing as a Commissar.

Again, there is nothing stopping you from telling your players that they cannot play Commissars or any Support Specialists. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be included in the rules as an option for other groups who do want to play them. Again I ask, what is the issue?

There is no issue, that is how I play the game. I am just saying that I understand why they had to put in the upper ranks in the book but I just don't think they fit into what FFG tried to make Only War. It just seems like they took Only War and turned it into a primarily squad based combat with upper echelon specialists who probably wouldn't be in that situation with about 95% of the regiments in the Imperial guard, To me it Just doesn't seem to fit.

As for commissars to me they seem to be more of the background characters that push the players on into the fighting. Now maybe one is attached to the mission to make sure it is completed and that's fine but I don't really see how it fits in as a PC. If a commissar is attached to their squad it really limits the player's options. It become weather I am going to take that hill or get shot in the back. The role of a commissar mostly is to maintain discipline by being more scary then the enemy and when one is in your squad then either you don't last long or the commissar doesn't. It no longer becomes fun when a person is playing as a commissar. Now I know some of you might say what if I played as a reasonable commissar rather than a zealot one? well I believe that that kind of defeats the purpose of a Commissar doesn't it?

The point is that un less you are playing as a commissar and a group of commissariat cadets, commissars should be limited to background NPCs.

Commissars can be dirty, like Cain, or just not stupid, like Gaunt. And I don't know how your games of 40k go, but I often see Commissars at that level running in and mixing it up. You say that situation would not come up in 95% of IG regiments, but I think in pretty much every IG regiment a Commissar is going to be exposed to as much danger, if not more, than the average grunt. They get right in there and fight.

There is no issue, that is how I play the game. I am just saying that I understand why they had to put in the upper ranks in the book but I just don't think they fit into what FFG tried to make Only War. It just seems like they took Only War and turned it into a primarily squad based combat with upper echelon specialists who probably wouldn't be in that situation with about 95% of the regiments in the Imperial guard, To me it Just doesn't seem to fit.

The problem with playing 'just line grunts' is that the game quickly becomes uninteresting:

Here's what the adventure at the back of the book might look like:

Your squad battalion (maybe 1000 guys) is sent through 250km?!!! of jungle to restablish contact with the refinery.

The wildlife is unlikely to trouble an armored column

And negotiations with the natives will be done by NPC officers, not the PCs

The most exciting things the PCs might get to deal with is getting diarrhea.

--------

The battalion arrives at the refinery. The officers send the scouts in to take a look. As the Pcs are line grunts, they get to dig fighting positions and wait. The scouts report back to the battalion commander, who develops an attack plan, He then tells the company commanders, who tell the platoon commanders, who tell the PCs.

The PCs then execute their part of the assault plan, which may just be sitting around and waiting, while other elements in the battalion get shot at.

Once the refinery is taken, the battalion commander develops a defense plan, he tells the company commanders, who tell the platoon commanders, who tell the PCs. The PCs implement their part of the defense plan, which is probably digging more holes in the ground. If the Pcs are lucky, they are over their diarrhea.

The orks attack. But almost all of the actual killing is done by the battalion heavy weapons platoon, who use autocannons and mortars to quickly wipe out the orks. All the PCs probably have to do is sit in their holes and watch the light show. If the Pcs actually have to shoot at something, they'll shoot at what's in their zone of the fireplan. If there is a change of plan, their platoon commander will thell them about it.

----------

Now, there are plenty of interesting things that could be played in that backdrop, but the sort of PCs make interesting battle plans and execute them is not going to happen, unless they are playing the officers.

Making the PCs the platoon leaders instead of squad members might work for that.

So your character roles look something like:

Platoon Commander

Platoon Sergeant

Platoon Medic

Weapons squad commander

Platoon Scout

or something, and instead of comrades, you have 'squads'.

I won't go through 6 pages of long posts..but commissars are not the bloodthirsty maniacs who enjoy blowing heads of random troopers to keep morale up that everyone pictures them to be. That's the extreme image. IIRC, even in the core they talk about how Guardsmen see Commissars not as rigid overseers that sucks out whatever notions of fun/relaxation/simple pleasures a soldier might have, they see him as whatever's gonna happen soon is of the upmost importance, enough to warrant a Commissar to be deployed with the troops rather than staying at Command HQ and advise the Colonel on this and that.

If people can't get the concept that, while being a leader, you're still a follower (as you're out of the command structure) and you're an basically an adviser attached to the squad rather than a 'do what I want or Die by my bolt pistol by The Emperor's Will' deus ex machima, well, no wonder some refuses Commissars. The Squad leader runs the show, you're just as a de-facto executive officer to him.

I won't go through 6 pages of long posts..but commissars are not the bloodthirsty maniacs who enjoy blowing heads of random troopers to keep morale up that everyone pictures them to be. That's the extreme image. IIRC, even in the core they talk about how Guardsmen see Commissars not as rigid overseers that sucks out whatever notions of fun/relaxation/simple pleasures a soldier might have, they see him as whatever's gonna happen soon is of the upmost importance, enough to warrant a Commissar to be deployed with the troops rather than staying at Command HQ and advise the Colonel on this and that.

If people can't get the concept that, while being a leader, you're still a follower (as you're out of the command structure) and you're an basically an adviser attached to the squad rather than a 'do what I want or Die by my bolt pistol by The Emperor's Will' deus ex machima, well, no wonder some refuses Commissars. The Squad leader runs the show, you're just as a de-facto executive officer to him.

I'll give you a quick update on the last pages of the thread. It has now devolved into an argument about how Only War "should" be played. One side is however you like and enjoy, the other is that you should only play lowly grunts and that half the specialities (basically all support) shouldn't be played at all.

Ah I see, 'nother one of those.

but commissars are not the bloodthirsty maniacs who enjoy blowing heads of random troopers to keep morale up that everyone pictures them to be.

Sorry Braddoc but that is exactly how they are portrayed by GW. That is what makes Gaunt such an interesting character, as he is so unlike the established character of a Commissar. The problem here is FFG has now introduced a different kind of Commissar, one that conflicts with GW's vision. But any fan of 40k should be much accustomed to GW inconsistency in their established fluff.

Sorry Braddoc but that is exactly how they are portrayed by GW. That is what makes Gaunt such an interesting character, as he is so unlike the established character of a Commissar. The problem here is FFG has now introduced a different kind of Commissar, one that conflicts with GW's vision. But any fan of 40k should be much accustomed to GW inconsistency in their established fluff.

There is no unified vision at GW. About anything, let alone commissars. On the other hand, there are, what, 3 firmly established "cool commissars" (Yarrick, Gaunt, and Cain) that don't fit into your paradigm. In other words, the "cool commissar" is the norm when he's a protagonist, and the rabies infected team killing zealot is the aberration.

The RPG does exactly what it should: let the PCs play anything from standard infantrymen IG kookie kutter klones of Krieg, up to force commanders and commissars. I'm sorry, but its just not possible for more options to be bad, when you can selectively ban whatever options as a GM.

Finally, GRIM N GRITTY ATMOSPHERE is 100% up to the GM. It is the GM's responsibility, no one else's, and not FFG's, to maintain the atmosphere he wants. It is the GM's responsibility, no one else's, and not FFG's, to ban whatever options he feels are ill fitting. Commissars are a popular archetype. It would be a colossal screwup to not ALLOW the OPTION.

Here's my idea on the Commissar thing: Since 40k is a mix of sci-fi and fantasy, it might help to also take a look at how a Commissar might be branded under a different name- "Paladin". I suggest that since they're a mix of a sort of lay preacher/morale officer and experienced combatant. Even looking at a few codices and seeing what they're supposed to represent (the aforementioned NKVD of the Soviet years, and various sorts of political officers), they can't just go around being openly threatening because that generally will have the opposite effect. Why did the Commissar execute that Guardsman? Cowardice, Incompetence, or Heresy, one of the three. All of which are disruptive to morale, and in the care of the first item, likely dangerous to a combat action because once one man starts panic running, it's a domino effect. Also, a Commissar can only shoot you for cowardice if he's on the lines to see it himself, meaning he's gonna have to share the crucible with the other Guardsmen. While some might be a bit brutal, and others might be feared through terror, it may be, say, a fear of being found lacking in ones' duty somehow, or that being that guy who screws it up severely for the rest of the unit. Not a bad/irrational kind of fear, mind you, but possibly the kind that says "I'm gonna go my best, I'm going to rise to the challenge, can't let the Emperor down". Sure, you might have a fantasy Cleric who preaches the good word, but when they gotta get serious, they roll out Paladins to fight on the front and be a sort of forward paragon to lead the charge, to be a sort of second face of the deity.

Not only that, though, but canonically, Death Korps commissars are their voice of moderation/liaison to other regiments (like in Dead Men Walking). Even if you looked at Gaunt and Cain, or even Yarrick, while they might be "atypical", there's a chance there might be plenty of "lesser" versions of them, tending to Guard forces everywhere. They'll have room to develop their own style of operation, and how they interact with the troops they oversee. Also, the're as detached as they are because Commissar A cannot be roped into a position to choose between his friends and the mission/regiment/Imperium. Guardsman B is Commissar A's best bud, and Guardsman B is lazy/runs from combat/is a utterly incompetent commander/ is secretly spreading heresy. Do you want Guardsman B having Commissar A in his pocket, or would you rather Commissar A be obvious in his "neutrality" in regards to all he oversees, ie, that he fulfills a common workplace fantasy and gets rid of that guy who's bringing down everybody around him?

There is no unified vision at GW. About anything, let alone commissars.

Well... I'd say the GW core studio actually has and propagates a rather uniform vision, when you compare the sources throughout the years. It is the 40k franchise as a whole which lacks consistency, for next to all the outsourced products such as Black Library novels or this RPG, even Codex fluff is "just another option", leaving players confused amidst a sea of contradictions with little explanation on how they are supposed to be handled (given that the writers' comments on the subject are a bit difficult to find and still not very well known amongst the community).

I don't blame them for not enforcing a more uniform vision (in spite of my personal preferences), but I would say they should do a better job at letting their gamers and readers know to avoid confusion.

Absolutely true, for better or worse.

I think it'd be best if, before beginning a new game for the first time, the GM would sit down with his or her players and discuss everyone's view on the 41st millennium, thus gauging/establishing "common ground", and then cater to that. The beauty of pen&paper systems is that they allow us to discard or add whatever we feel fits to our expectations.

Absolutely true, for better or worse.

I think it'd be best if, before beginning a new game for the first time, the GM would sit down with his or her players and discuss everyone's view on the 41st millennium, thus gauging/establishing "common ground", and then cater to that. The beauty of pen&paper systems is that they allow us to discard or add whatever we feel fits to our expectations.

That's totally something I do. And gallows humor is something that I always mention is a big part of my vision of 40k - the setting is so fantastically terrible it wraps right around to being light-hearted again.

That's totally something I do. And gallows humor is something that I always mention is a big part of my vision of 40k - the setting is so fantastically terrible it wraps right around to being light-hearted again.

"Wow, double rations! What's the occasion, Sarge?"

"Remember that big explosion we heard this morning? That was an accident at our artillery emplacement. There won't be any covering bombardment for our mission tomorrow, but at least all the casualties freed up some extra grub. Eat up."

Personally, I agree that the generalized view of the Commissar (and to a greater extent, the Imperium) is what comes to mind for most people at first. But then again, you have to remember that the FFG books are still approved by GW, just as the BL books are. Even with the "homebrew" content of FFG, that still means their assessments of a class or character have valid weight. It's kind of missed in peoples' minds that, in fact, the Imperium probably only standardizes what it can, which in the long run isn't much. They give a basic set of criteria, and it's up to the approved institution or sanctioned individual to go about it as they see fit, even if the institution or person tacks on their own preferences as to how something is to be done.

By the way, since I've mentioned the book a few times, the Commissar I mention in Dead Men Walking? Has three grown grandsons. Not something I personally ever considered, but did get me wondering about Commissars in a different light. In the words of Thulsa Doom, "Contemplate this on the Tree of Woe."

But then again, you have to remember that the FFG books are still approved by GW, just as the BL books are. Even with the "homebrew" content of FFG, that still means their assessments of a class or character have valid weight. It's kind of missed in peoples' minds that, in fact, the Imperium probably only standardizes what it can, which in the long run isn't much. They give a basic set of criteria, and it's up to the approved institution or sanctioned individual to go about it as they see fit, even if the institution or person tacks on their own preferences as to how something is to be done.

This way of thinking should be applied more to how GW runs the franchise (and it works almost 1:1 too!), rather than how the Imperium exists in-universe. Even with GW approving or disapproving things, you still get a ton of sources with obvious contradictions that cannot possibly coexist consistently even with the "but space is huge" cop-out.

To take FFG's Only War vs GW's Codex:IG as an example, you can't have the Vostroyans be mixed-gender and male-only simultaneously, you can't have only the Triplex-pattern lasgun be popular for its charge slider and simultaneously have this feature on every lasgun ever (something which was only introduced because the OW player community lobbied for it no less), and you can't have members of the Storm Trooper regiment, of which there is only one in Codex fluff, integrate with grunt squads when they only ever deploy with their own units. Just to name a few examples off the top of my hat. That Commissars have the same "homeworld" as their regiment rather than the Schola Progenium background is another, but I would see this more as an issue of the rules rather than the fluff.

Anyways, if you're curious, Gav Thorpe talked about how the GW approval process works on his blog . The short answer is, GW cares for the theme and the atmosphere more than than about details. Where it comes to the latter, everyone - writer and reader - is free to cherrypick whatever they like, including contradicting ideas that just sound cool to them. Hence the suggestion to check within the group to make sure that everyone is onboard the same fluff boat before beginning the game.

Also: hah @ Adeptus-B

GW cares for the theme and the atmosphere more than than about details. Where it comes to the latter, everyone - writer and reader - is free to cherrypick whatever they like, including contradicting ideas that just sound cool to them.

This is the answer to the question in a nutshell - for older players like myself who remember when Leman Russ was a plain illustration of an Imperial Commander (before Primarchs existed) and Sisters of Battle were just female Space Marines (who were all recruited from adult Pychopaths and convicted criminals) any arguments over "the background says this" are meaningless, as GW never deletes old fluff, just adds to the existing pile - purposefully according to them. Individuals are free to pick and choose what they prefer (maybe something written in a later codex than an earlier) but the 'word of God' itself is that nothing is more valid than anything else - no matter how much some might wish it was otherwise - so arguing that the way the FFG rules portray a character class is nonsense - it's all personal opinion.

In fact (poor memory here) I remember a RPG of long ago where it was clearly stated that ALL the rules were optional, and the GM and players were free to pick what they liked - as it was THEIR game, and their story. Perhaps if FFG had added this at the start of the rules we could avoid threads like this! :-)

Avoid arguments?... THIS. IS. INTERNET!

but commissars are not the bloodthirsty maniacs who enjoy blowing heads of random troopers to keep morale up that everyone pictures them to be.

Sorry Braddoc but that is exactly how they are portrayed by GW. That is what makes Gaunt such an interesting character, as he is so unlike the established character of a Commissar. The problem here is FFG has now introduced a different kind of Commissar, one that conflicts with GW's vision. But any fan of 40k should be much accustomed to GW inconsistency in their established fluff.

I would disagree with that, from what I've read commissars are as varied as the Regiments in the Guard, the only common point is that they are outside the standard chain of command and they are there for morale purposes.

and personally, I never read Sharpe...IN SPAAACE nor any other novels. The universe is varied enough, that I see no point bowing down to what some author claims is the truth.

Yup, dig back through an old catalogue of GW minis and you'll be able to find a Commissar-cadet squad, from the first Imperial Guard (as opposed to Imperial Army) list - where the fluff held that Commissars were all orphaned children of Imperial Guard officers, taken in by the Imperium into Scolastica, and then fed on the heroism of their dead parents, and sent out to live up to those ideals - The 'cadet squad' let you field these raw recruits prior to their achieving full Commissar status - without a Stormtrooper in sight!

Our commissar has so far been helpful to the story, helping to keep the group on one task by giving orders, and not intentionally being a **** and screwing up the campaign. One of his first orders was for the medic to put a pillow in the face of an unconscious patient who was slowing the squad down...

Our commissar has so far been helpful to the story, helping to keep the group on one task by giving orders, and not intentionally being a **** and screwing up the campaign. One of his first orders was for the medic to put a pillow in the face of an unconscious patient who was slowing the squad down...

But.. but.. it's Timmy!

;_;

What is he doing giving orders? Your squad doesn't have a sarge or what?

What is he doing giving orders? Your squad doesn't have a sarge or what?

Commissars have a mandate to maintain morale, root out sedition and make sure that a regiment or squad is operating at full efficiency, free of corruptive or seditious influences.

They unique position supersedes that of.. anyone, really. It's half the problem with having Commissars in standard Only War regiments. Technically, a Commissar can legally execute a Planetary Governor or a Lord-General, should he have cause (although in such extreme cases, he better have political leeway, forensic evidence and/or meaningful testimonies to back that up) to do so.

There's a reason Commissars are often banned from games, simply because most people can't roleplay it properly without going full retard.

If the squad is slowed down and no-one is doing anything about it, and the situation warrants it, it's the commissars duty to give the order to summarily execute whomever is slowing them down. And Comrade, Sergeant or General, they have to obey.

Of course, just like so much else in 40k, despite how it tends to be portrayed in certain circumstances, and despite the legal power a lot of positions endow one with, it doesn't really matter if you risk ending up with a case of acute knife-itis. Having your squadmembers kill their friends unless absolutely necessary is a surefire way to lower squad morale and, worst case scenario, end up with a [M.I.A]-stamp in your record.

As far as I understand things, Commies have absolute power to insure that orders are followed.

They cannot actually GIVE orders.

That's what the sergeant does.

Matter of interpretation, perhaps? A Commissar would probably step back and let the Sergeant do his/her job, but as soon as they begin to suspect that the Sergeant fails to pursue the last standing orders from regimental command, or the general goal of the Imperial campaign, they would likely begin to pressure the Sergeant to do so - and, in doing so, essentially issue orders themselves.

If there is no Sergeant in the squad, they may also assume personal leadership until such time as a proper squad commander can be assigned from the company commander - all under the mantle of enforcing that orders issued from higher up are followed right unto the last part of the chain.

In the end, it is less the Commissar's task to make sure that any order issued is actually followed (which would make them the pet enforcers of the officer caste), but to represent and assert the Imperium's interests in the campaign. The former is merely a part of the latter. As is keeping an eye open for signs of heresy, corruption, or mutation ... or inspiring the men and women in their regiment with exemplary valour.

As far as I understand things, Commies have absolute power to insure that orders are followed.

They cannot actually GIVE orders.

That's what the sergeant does.

Semantics. Their mandate is to ensure that orders are followed, and to do this, it is fairly obvious that orders will have to be given. When the Commissar tells you to kill the guardsman that is endangering the mission (and thus threatening the execution of the mission, i.e. the order), is that an order, or is it merely him ensuring that orders are followed?

The Sergeant's orders is to lead the squad in order to complete a mission. The problem with Commissars is that their authority supercedes the Sergeants, and if the Sergeant gives orders that counters (or is perceived to counter) the greater mandate of the Commissar authorizes him to intervene in practically any way he deems necessary.

Nobody likes a Commissar. The soldiers fear that he'll think that they are not executing the orders of the Sergeant properly. The Sergeants fear he'll think that they're not executing the orders of the General properly. The Generals fear that he'll think that they're not executing the orders of the Planetary Governor properly. The Planetary Governors fear that he'll think that they are not executing the orders of Sector Command properly. And so on and so forth. And all the while you have no idea if he has secondary or tertiary orders that might run counter to what you think is the mission.

Turns out the mission isn't the mission.

The mission is necrons.

Congratulations and welcome to the mind-cleanse.